There have been some thoughts about revising the standard. In order
to do that, those in the standards committee should know what the
system implementors and the programmers are already doing in that
area, and what they would be willing to do, or wish for.

To do that, I am trying a system here that is somewhat like the
RfD/CfV system for deciding about newsgroups: A proponent of an
extension or change to the standard writes up a proposal; this
proposal is then published here as an RfD (request for discussion),
and others can then comment on the proposal; the proponent can modify
the proposal, taking the comments into consideration, or he can ignore
some of the comments (if that's a problem for the commenters, they can
make a competing proposal, or somesuch).

Anyway, once a proposal has settled down, it enters the CfV (call for
votes) stage, where system implementors state, whether their system
implements this proposal, or what the chances are that it ever will.
Similarly, programmers can state whether they have used stuff like
that proposed, and whether they would use the proposed extension once
it is standardized. After a deadline, a preliminary poll result will
be published, but the poll will remain open for adding to the Web page
(especially system implementors are invited to do that).

Proposals in the CfV stage are eligible for inclusion in the
Forth200x standard, and many have been included already.

Related Processes

As mentioned above, this process was inspired by the RfD/CfV system
that helps news admins decide which newsgroups they should provide on
their Usenet news servers; the corresponding roles are:

news servers - Forth systems

news admins - Forth system implementors

Usenet posters and lurkers - Forth programmers

A similar process, and closer in subject matter, is the SRFI (Scheme request for
implementation) process for proposing extensions for the programming
language Scheme.

Finally, Python has a similar mechanism: PEPs (Python extension
proposal).